minor things but undocumented

[da1edwin]

Not so much; it's kind of awkward. Starting with 100 --- 50% more is *1.5, or 150. 50% less is /1.5, or 66.67 - NOT 50. The difference between going from 100 to 200 to 250 is the same as 100 to 50 to 40.

I remember seeing something on Soul Caliber 2(?) about how they screwed up the weapon stats in this fashion, treating 150 and 50 as if they were the same difference from 100, so some of the weapons were especially weak or overpowered =) (In other words, it's easy to screw up!)

You've got two concepts mixed up - what you're talking about is "times as much". Twice as much as 100 (which can also be expressed as "200% of 100") is 200. 100% more than 100 is also 200. But 100% less than 100 is 0. Saying "x% less than y" is equivalent to saying " - x% more than y", so 50% less than 100 is - 50% more than 100, which is (1-0.5)100 = 50. Shops have it right when they say an item is 25% off and the price is 75% of what it used to be. On the other hand, 150% of 100 (not 150% more than 100, which is 250) is 150, and the inverse operation of this is 100 / 150% = 66+2/3, as you stated.

[Aielyn]

I can't find any mention of this anywhere, but kicking walls in the Ancient Dwarven Graveyard always (well, at least when kicking for secret door discovery purposes) produces the "You really hurt your foot kicking the wall!" message, thus making it useless for finding the secret doors.

I wouldn't have a clue if this is also true in other locations. I just noticed it today.

[Soirana]

10 characters

[Laukku]

Not so much; it's kind of awkward. Starting with 100 --- 50% more is *1.5, or 150. 50% less is /1.5, or 66.67 - NOT 50. The difference between going from 100 to 200 to 250 is the same as 100 to 50 to 40.

50% is half. Half less is half of the original value. I don't know where you get the idea that substracting 50% would be the same as dividing by 1.5.

50% = 0.5 = 1/2
50% of 100 = 0.5*100 = 100*1/2 = 50
100 - 100*1/2 = 100 - 50 = 50

EDIT: Didn't notice da1edwin's post, but I think he explained what you did wrong.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

Yeah, it is easy to get confused with percentage increases and decreases because they work in an assymetric way. If you have a price, and first increase it by 50% and then decrease it by 50%, you don't get what you had at the beginning, you get less. This is because "increasing something by x%" really means "multiplying something by (1+x/100)", and of course multiplying by 1+x/100 is not the inverse operation to multiplying by 1-x/100.

Most people don't realise this in their daily lives even if they do understand it if they stop to think. So they hear that unemploymet went down by 2% last year and up by 2% this year and think that globally it must have stayed the same, when it hasn't.

[Aielyn]

Most people don't realise this in their daily lives even if they do understand it if they stop to think. So they hear that unemploymet went down by 2% last year and up by 2% this year and think that globally it must have stayed the same, when it hasn't.

Typically unemployment figures are percentages in the first place. So when they say unemployment went down 0.5%, it's as a percentage of the total employable population, not a percentage of the previous unemployment figure. So if it goes down 0.5% and then up 0.5%, it's back where it started, except for the effect of population growth.

But generally, yes - most people fail to realise that when you increase and decrease by the same percentage (x%), one after another, it actually results in a net decrease, of the order of x^2/100^2 (the net effect is 1-x^2/100^2). So increasing by 50% and then decreasing by 50% results in a net decrease of 25%.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

Typically unemployment figures are percentages in the first place. So when they say unemployment went down 0.5%, it's as a percentage of the total employable population, not a percentage of the previous unemployment figure. So if it goes down 0.5% and then up 0.5%, it's back where it started, except for the effect of population growth.

Yes, you are totally right in that. I was really thinking about the stock exchange, but I then changed it to unemployment because it's a more pressing issue. But actually, the stock exchange is a good example of the effect I was mentioning but unemployment isn't, for the reason you mention.

[Dudley]

Wands of far slaying's damage depends both on what energy you gave them and their B/U/C

[Sami]

Wands of far slaying's damage depends both on what energy you gave them and their B/U/C

As far as I know it doesn't. buc-status and energy affects only it's range. Damage/hit is always 1d6 or something like that.

[Dudley]

okie... maybe the fact that it sent only 1-2 damage each time i used it while it was cursed, nd ≈5-6 when blessed... sorry.